New Labour

So Labour is going to deliberately court a section of the Christian vote...perhaps I'm cynical...no perhaps about it! But anyway, despite some rather odd comments in the article, it seems like the left is slowly getting itself organised to respond to the sometimes orchestrated politicisation of the Christian right. With that in mind I thought I would assist the Labour party by completing a partial segmentation of this unexploited market:

• The new Labour Christians will be quite different from some Christians on the issue of killing people. Instead of being pro war and pro death penalty with a homicidal commitment to being anti abortion, the new Labour Christians will be anti killing people;
• They will drink only fair trade coffee (usually freshly roasted by some trendy local coffee roaster) but not if its from Esquires (low quality coffee like the exploitation of coffee bean growers all over the world, leaves a bad taste in the mouth);
• They will have a commitment to the environment and might even vote green if it weren't for the dope-smoking fine print;
• They might read Brian McLaren, Robb Bell, Doug Pagitt et al but probably won't be Tim La Haye or Frank Peretti fans;
• They will support the welfare state as a concept where it seeks to ameliorate the effects of social inequity, but will want to see some long term efforts to reduce the cycle of poverty;
• They probably won't attend Destiny Church;
• They will give to Tear Fund but probably not World Vision;
• They will happily overlook Helen Clark's commitment to a radical policy of social re engineering, because thats still the price of voting Labour;
• They will likely be refugees from pentecostalism, although not exclusively;
• They will love Bono...

Alright so its not exhaustive but its a start. Have I missed any key attributes that should be immediately communicated to the Labour PR spin doctors?

Mainstream Fundamentalists

Some "interesting" comments from gaynz on the Family First event on the weekend. Whatever you think of Family First, this writer got it completely wrong with his description of Vision Network New Zealand and Daystar. Elements within the gay community are very free with their demonising language: you are homophobic if you express any reservation about the gay lifestyle; now you are a fundamentalist if you adopt an historic Christian viewpoint (appropriately balanced by love, tolerance etc).

Actually when you think about it there is a sectarian, fundamentalism that goes with that kind of attitude. I'm as tired of the rhetoric from some of these idiots as I am with the litany of hate that issues forth from extreme elements of the Christian "right".

It seems a shame to target some of the more genuine defenders of orthodox Christianity as if they are indistinguishable from the more militant elements.

I asked, "Do you speak-a my language?"

He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich.

Well not it seems if you are one of the near 100,000 Australian and New Zealand expatriates in the US who are officially up in arms at crazy US border guards searching them for Vegemite. The reason? Vegemite has fallen foul of an obscure US dietary law that bans folate, one of its ingredients, from anything other than bread and cereals. Folate is a highly dangerous compound, necessary for the production and maintenance of new cells. This is especially important during periods of rapid cell division and growth such as infancy and pregnancy. In fact, and this is where it gets bizarre, since 1998, food manufacturers in the US have been required to add folic acid to enriched breads, cereals, flours, corn meals, pastas, rice, and other grain products. These regulations were specifically targeted to reduce the risk of birth defects in newborns. So go figure why its not allowed in Vegemite.

But I have a suggestion for you: they're not yet onto the fact that marmite also contains folic acid - so just take your marmite in instead and look the border guard straight in the eye when you deny the presence of vegemite in your bags. After all, right-thinking people, understand that marmite is the superior product.

I do wonder if this will create some real issues for customs/immigration:

• Will it now be a crime to joke in line, "Do you want to see my vegemite sandwich?"
• Will jars of vegemite left unattended in airports be blown up by bomb squads?
• And if an overzealous border guard conducts a cavity search, how will they know if its vegemite?

The End of the Beginning

A big night for cessioncommunity last night as we celebrated a feast of community:

• The recognition of cessioncommunity as an Established church within the Wesleyan Methodist church
• The commissioning of our foundation Servant Leaders
• The Ministerial Licensing of Frank Ritchie

Such a significant time.

I sense that it truly is the end of the beginning. We are no longer a church plant able to trade on the "we're just getting started" thing. We are now the real deal. I believe its time to step up.

Especially the pastor...not because of the "special" in "especially" but because I know I have more to give and I'm not prepared to leave anything on the field, as they say in sporting parlance.

My biggest challenge? To consistently live out of Luke 4:16-21 and be one of the crowd with my eyes "fastened" on Jesus Christ.

Images from Vacation

So I finally got round to downloading our vacation pictures! There are more family type pictures (mainly of Rhys over at Jonescam).













St Louis - Gateway to the West!















The Mississippi

The Winemaker was a Kiwi!

"It's grapejuice I swear!"

"Is it wine?"

Bluegrass - Just like Parachute!

Friday Poetry

Ode to a Flightless Bird

The air was black with beating wings
A flash of steel ripping soft flesh
The stench of scorched meat
Tossed and turned
Laid out in neat rows
Vitality draining below
Flinching at the scalding hiss
Life extinguished
It is finished
No more Kiwis flying
At this BBQ

A Tough Question

Sometimes life serves up some real ethical dilemmas. You don't know which way to turn. Both paths seem to offer something and yet there is a downside to each as well. Dilemmas of this sort can weigh a person down, lead them to lose weight, become stressed and ultimately drive them to drink.

Which leads me to my dilemma.

I have recently become the owner of a bottle of Penfolds Bin 707 1996. This is a premium wine that could easily set you back $200. It has a recommended drinking range between 2008-2020.

The issues are twofold - the former a matter of preference - the latter the ethical dilemma. First and perhaps easiest: when should I drink it? If I had a great cellar I might wait till 2020, but i think not. I doubt it will last beyond 2010! But, just when and on what occasion is a prospect to inhale...a date to roll across the tongue...a fleeting aftertaste of speculation. I'd value your thoughts... a birthday? A child's birth? A boring Friday night with pizza?

The harder and more delicate issue is who with? Or rather: with anyone? It might be the sin of drunkenness to drink the entire bottle solo...although stretching it over 2 nights would not offend my palate nor the Wesleyan police. But might others be offended when they ask: whatever happened to that Penfolds Bin 707 1996 you had in the cellar? Yet the more one involves the less there is for oneself. I have had offers already (from the usual suspects). But what do you gentle reader and potential supplicant think? To share or not to share...that is the question!

Benny and the Jet

No its not an Elton John remake - something rather less tasteful I'm afraid. Benny Hinn has bought a private jet! I'm sure its good stewardship but the $6m price tag is a little hard to swallow (some would say it cost more). Not only that for a gift of $1,000 you can have you name written on the interior of the plane, so in Benny's words not only will you be prayed for, you will be honoured. So, what you're saying Benny is that if I give you $1,000 you will pray for me and my money will buy me honour in your kingdom? I shouldn't channel surf so early in the morning.

Also from the bizarre and silly was an item on Breakfast this morning. A Ukrainian has invented a musical condom designed to play louder and faster as lovers reach a climax. Apparently the condoms are fitted with a special sensor that registers when the condom is put on. It transmits a signal to a miniature speaker in the base of the condom. The speaker then plays a melody. Here's the catch, because the music played is quite limited it sounds like an old cell phone ring - which I would have thought would be somewhat distracting! And what "ringtone" would you use? "How Deep is Your Love"?

But the most bizarre news of all? The NZ Cricket team are all fit at the same time! The TAB is taking bets on who will be first to reinjure himself.

You heard it here first.

Epidemic Strikes New Zealand

With Bird 'Flu and HIV so prominent in the scaremedia these days its surprising that a more subtle and insidious disease has not made it to the front of the media queue. The results of this disease are debilitating the country and causing individuals to suffer quite profoundly:

• Elevation of stress levels with attendant impact on blood pressure
• Mood swings caused by conflicting diagnoses
• Increasing levels of phone rage
• Circular neurolinguistic utterance
• Diabetes (brought on by saccharine responses and fake smiles)

I speak of course of the Call Centre epidemic. It is now virtually impossible for anyone in New Zealand to actually speak to the person handling their file. So a game of "Chinese" whispers begins. Let me give you 2 examples (both true stories):

Example 1

Person receives notice that Family Assistance has been overpaid

Person phone IRD to clarify and is given good news - a fresh assessment is to be sent out

Fresh Assessment arrives...with exactly the same amount to pay

Person quitely goes crazy and ignores

Out of the blue another assessment arrives for half of the original amount but still twice the amount verbally reported by phone as owing

Person rings again to clarify. Having told the story again, the person is put on hold. After waiting for a lengthy period the person is cut off without an answer

Next day (having waited in vain for a returned call) the person rings again and is told by a different call centre person that both assessments seem wrong and that a fresh assessment will need to be completed

Person waits cyncially for the next chapter

Example 2

Person rings IRD to enquire of the status of an organisation's application. This is the person who has (a) Completed all the forms (b) Been nominated as contact (c) Has received communication from the IRD in writing. Person is told they are not listed as an official contact.

Who is an official contact? Can't tell you as you're not an official contact.

Is it "x"? No.

Well there is no one else! And IRD have already been in contact with me - I think this is your mistake in loading the information. Can I speak to the department concerned who is dealing with this file? No, no one gets to speak to the processing centres.

So how does one go about getting the forms looked at? The contact person could ask.

Who is that person? I can't tell you.

Can you send a letter out to the contact person telling them that they are the contact person? No

(penny drops as he realises IRD's mistake) Is the contact person "y" (involved with the national church) I can't tell you.

Well if it is then its your mistake, he was simply endorsing the church as being within the denomination. I still don't have you as a contact - perhaps "y" could contact us?

"y" is not available for national duties at present. Well I'm sorry I can't help you.

Call ends.

Insanity. I have also had this same scenario play out with Immigration, DHB's etc. Its not obesity thats causing heart disease to rise in NZ, its call centres...

WiSPA or Shout?

The World Society for the Protection of Animals is lobbying the UN for a Universal Declaration for the Welfare of Animals at the United Nations. They are trying to collect 10,000,000 signatures to demonstrate to the UN that this is something people want. I tried in vain to find something on their website (the international one was down) that would help me understand what they're seeking - for example I don't think its a good thing to treat animals cruelly...but I am inclined to continue eating some of them, which some would say is cruel! Best I can ascertain it is about recognising that animals do feel pain and can suffer and that whether animals are being used for food, transport, protection, labour or companionship, this should be recognised by law. I can support that so I signed the petition. Check it out for yourself.

Presbyterians Straight Down the Line

The Presbyterian Assembly confirmed its 2004 decision not to train or ordain anyone involved in a sexual relationmship outside marriage. This is a significant decision for the church and will create ripples around the body of Christ and (already) in the liberal media.

What I applaud about the decision is that it is a decision rooted in sexual ethics and leadership rather than the sexuality of leadership. There is no double standard hiding in the closet. Of course the critics will say it hides behind a conservative definition of marriage and thats true. But even our government with its radical liberal social agenda has not tried to change the rules on marriage (even if they did create a backdoor route).

Watch for the media to beat it up and misreport things like the Human Rights Act. This decision only confirms that the Presbyterians are lining up their doctrine with virtually every other church in New Zealand, with the exception of the Methodists, Quakers and some Anglican primates.

Anyway, here's the scoop off the Prebyterian website:


GA06 confirms rule on sexuality and leadership

General Assembly today confirmed its 2004 rule that those involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage (whether gay, lesbian or heterosexual) can not be trained, licensed, ordained or inducted for leadership within the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand. This ruling does not apply to homosexual people licensed, ordained or inducted prior to the 2004 Assembly.
Commissioners from presbyteries around the country, together with a considerable number of parishioners, gathered at St Kentigern College as the Rev Dr Kerry Enright, Assembly Executive Secretary, presented the motion to the Assembly. As is the tradition of the Presbyterian Church, open and robust debate followed the motion, which reflects an issue that has been before the Church for many years. Strong feelings were expressed on either side by commissioners from a variety of presbyteries and synods, some of whom had attended many Assemblies and others who were attending for the first time. After voting by ballot, it was announced that the motion had been carried by 230 votes to 124 (65 percent in favour).
At the request of the Moderator, the Right Rev Pamela Tankersley, news of the decision was met with silence, as commissioners were encouraged to hold it in God’s hands. In her closing prayer, Pamela asked that the church keeps in mind that this issue is not a question of winning or losing, but rather about finding God’s way. She remembered those whose lives will be deeply affected by this decision and prayed that “we will be able to deal with each other in love, even when we disagree”.
This rule is not retrospective and only applies to people being assessed for future training or leadership positions. It is not a disciplinary standard and cannot be used to remove a person who is already holding an office.

Coffee Anyone?

I'll take mine hot and strong with just a half teaspoon of controversy, well stirred...

And the Oscar Goes To...

The issue of the Christian community's attitude to film and media has been a fascinating eye opener for me this past year. Oh I knew the successors of the "Moral Majority" were still out there looking to catch TV programmers out if a suggestive wink was proffered on our screens before 7.30pm...but I didn't know that the sense of moral insecurity bulwarked by a celluloid siege mentality was quite so endemic to such a wide cross section of the body of Christ. I'm not sure how they manage to complete their "Bible in a Year" programmes without confronting the sometimes harsh reality of life - at least they won't be challenged by what they see at the movies.

This posture of cranium enveloping silica insertion is something you won't find over at Filmguide - well you will find it, you just won't find it going unchallenged! Anyways I find it refreshing. I came across this fascinating letter to a new division of Fox - "Fox Faith"...it raises parallel issues as they relate to the concept of "Christian Film". Some of the bits that stood out for me I highlighted...


Making "Christian" Movies: An Open Letter to Fox Faith
by Marc T. Newman, Ph.D.

Dear Fox Faith:

I read with great interest about 20th Century Fox's launch of your new entertainment division that is dedicated to the production of Christian and family-friendly films – particularly when the About Us section on your website clearly defines your intent: "To be part of Fox Faith a movie has to have overt Christian Content or be derived from the work of a Christian author." As a new brand, I recognize that money may not flow too quickly to your division; perhaps that explains why most of the films will have small budgets -- around $5 million – and that many titles will go straight to DVD. I want to assure you that I, and millions of other people who are hungry for good films, wish you only the best. And, even though the advice comes to you unsolicited, I'd like to share with you a few thoughts on how you might achieve your goal.

The Trouble With "Christian Films"

One of your biggest marketing battles is to convince Christians to see "Christian films," [what a MAGNIFICENT understatement!] a label which, over the years, has come to be nearly synonymous with "bad movie." I was heartened by your desire to skip the proselytizing. Thoughtful writers who happen to be Christians, such as Dorothy Sayers, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Flannery O'Conner would all agree with this choice. The job of preachers (and Christians everywhere) is evangelism. The job of movies is to tell great stories. [amen] Great stories can move us, affect our world view, cause us to consider ideas that we had never entertained before, and lead to open doors for spiritual conversations – but they cannot substitute for them. When films push too hard to preach or moralize, they tend to fail miserably. C.S. Lewis, when asked whether the world needs more Christian writers, replied, "No, we need more writers who are Christian." What Lewis meant was that Christians who want to be writers need to hone their craft so that their stories are compelling to anyone who might read them. He was not interested in ghettoizing a narrow niche of minor, or outright bad, literature written by Christians, for Christians. May God bless you in the search for great new screenwriters and filmmakers who are Christians, and may the Church recognize the need to raise up and support committed, creative artists.

The Audience

Most Christians are grown-ups. [I thought this was an unsubstantiated assertion...] It is unfortunate, but many Christians associate "Christian films" with dull, badly produced movies whose major recommendation is that they are inoffensive to your average 8-year-old. [Another unfounded assertion: I think most 8 year olds are offended] As a result, they do not watch them or select them on DVD. When contemporary films are made about encounters between the Church and, for example, the world of gang-bangers, the "Christianizing" technique of sanitizing the language of the gangsters simply results in an utter lack of authenticity [Yo mother dear, I'm gonna bust a cap in your arm...]. Within Christian circles most are looking for age-appropriate stories with accompanying ratings. I would not show Amistad to a 10-year-old, but I might to a mature 16-year-old. It is a fine film and has a seamlessly-integrated Christian message.The Passion of the Christ demonstrated that Christian audiences are not opposed to violence in films as long as it is authentic and, ultimately, in the service of a higher good. (Those who argued that the violence in The Passion of the Christ was gratuitous know nothing about scourging or crucifixion.) Sure, bad guys can shoot, but good guys should be able to shoot back or otherwise engage the sword to exact justice. Christians also are no strangers to sexuality (they do have kids, after all, and have read The Song of Solomon), but while watching violent behavior is unlikely to cause people to go out and commit similar acts, watching naked people coupling gives rise to lust. The old-fashioned method of fading to black to indicate impending sexuality still works if artfully employed [I've never managed to fade to black...]. The key is quality storytelling. Christian audiences want to be engaged, not lulled into a saccharine coma. That said, unlike some film reviewers who appear to want all films to be dark, edgy, coarse, and offensive – Christian audiences (like most other people) are not opposed to sentimental films (meaning films that evoke just sentiments). They just don't want them to be sappy.

Production Values

I am admittedly a little nervous about the fact that Harrison Ford's salary per film (as reported on the Internet Movie Database) would eat up nearly half of your budget for an entire year's slate. Don't get me wrong. I know that some great-looking pictures have been made for little money. The Illusionist has a beautiful period look, and cost only $16.5 million to make. End of the Spear (a biopic about Christian missionaries) had terrific production value for a $10 million film. But even the "shot on home video" look of Little Miss Sunshine cost $8 million. Show production values – don't skimp. If Christians would have been willing to support poorly-scripted, shabbily-shot Christian movies, the Left Behind films would have been box-office hits.[comment of the letter] As it was, the domestic box office take on Left Behind was less than the projected budget for one of your films.

While not every film can be a summer tent-pole production, most Christians would still rather see fewer titles with greater quality, than a lot of cheap, inoffensive, bland movies. Seek out intriguing stories, pay for clever screenwriters, put a beautiful, well-produced film up on the screen and, just like Field of Dreams told us, "They will come."

Honest Interest

Christian audiences are slowly becoming more media-literate. They have learned their lessons about studios trying to manipulate them into staging boycotts of films offensive to their faith. They will not deliver to studios that they perceive as merely pandering to them. What they want is for you to take them seriously and have an honest interest in their concerns. The vast majority of Christians go to the cinema along with everyone else when a story is good. They will not turn out for films with "overt Christian Content" if the movie is otherwise bad. I think that there is a small, but growing, number of young actors, screenwriters, cinematographers, and directors out there that can deliver the goods, and who create from a Christian worldview. I have seen their work at places like the Angelus Film Festival. And, if you will excuse this brief aside to the other readers of this letter, if the Church continues to complain about the content of films coming out of Hollywood, but will not emotionally, materially, and spiritually support those in our congregations who gravitate toward the arts, then we are the equivalent of those who, as C.S. Lewis explained, "laugh at honor and are surprised to find traitors in our midst." [how true is this?] If we want the product, we need to encourage our producers.

It is my most sincere hope that you will be succeed in creating movies that reflect the worldview of thoughtful Christian filmmakers. I believe that if you do this job well, you will discover that your audience far exceeds your target demographic. After all, who doesn't want to see a great movie?

You can check out the site that this from - www.movieministry.com You can sign up for weekly reviews if you like that sort of thing, but I prefer the fix I get at filmguide!

So, What is Holy Living?

This is a question that has been niggling at me from more than one angle. Too many to really explain. I've heard a lot of pat answers. I've tasted (mostly vicariously) a rules-based approach which I utterly reject. I fail miserably in the personal pursuit of holiness. In fact, I find the most consistent reflection of Christlike character in community. Maybe that's an issue that deserves more thought.

This quote from Out of Ur sums up part of the debate for me:

More and more, the new generations cannot stomach these holiness codes. I have regularly met with outstanding candidates for ministry who raise their eyebrow at my denomination’s persistence on its holiness codes for clergy. This is because these codes are not holy. Instead, they trivialize holiness. The real question for us holiness denominations, if we are ever to be taken seriously by the postmodern generations (and our credibility slips everyday we hold onto to these “legalistic and unbiblical” codes of behavior—e.g. there is no Bible verse prohibiting drinking alcohol, quite the contrary), is whether we have the wherewithal to be sanctified in such a way as to be trusted with a drink or a stogie.

The real issue that our denominational leaders should focus on concerning the fitness of clergy is the commitment to a holy life and what that looks like in community. Obviously this refers to issues like drunkenness, addictions that reveal our lack of dependence upon God including tobacco, pornography, gambling, and yes, food! But this should also include how we handle money, how we engage the poor, how we speak to our neighbors, whether we engage in conflict in holy and Christ like ways. We should not resort to legalism!

Legalism is not the answer. Nor is License. Does anyone have any bright ideas?

For Every Ethical Action There is an Equal and Unethical Reaction

I'm not sure whether there is any truth in this heading or whether it is just an amusing play on words. But I have had much recent cause to ponder the issue of ethics in Christian circles - themes like consistency, integrity have been weaving their way through my life. I have certainly come to speculate whether ethics and character are one - sometimes I think yes and then I wonder about that when I take an ethical position with a force that reflects questionable character!

Maybe its simply another way of saying: "turn the other cheek"?

Anyways I came across this reflection on Barth which I found helpful. The whole blog is an interesting one and you can access it from my links - and yes this is one of "those" Drury's (son of Keith I believe). I don't think I've met John but I think we stayed in the apartment they lived in for a time in Grand Haven.